ACR Meeting Abstracts

ACR Meeting Abstracts

  • Home
  • Meetings Archive
    • ACR Convergence 2021
    • ACR Convergence 2020
    • 2020 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • 2019 ACR/ARP Annual Meeting
    • 2018 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting
    • 2017 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting
    • 2017 ACR/ARHP PRSYM
    • 2016-2009 Meetings
    • Download Abstracts
  • Keyword Index
  • Advanced Search
  • Your Favorites
    • Favorites
    • Login
    • View and print all favorites
    • Clear all your favorites
  • Meeting Resource Center

Abstract Number: 105

Immunologic Properties of Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus (CLE) Patients Refractory to Antimalarials Compared to Patients That Respond to Antimalarials

Majid Zeidi1,2, Krisha Desai3,4, Hee Joo Kim3,4,5 and Victoria P. Werth3,4, 1University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 2Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, 3Department of Dermatology, Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VAMC, Philadelphia, PA, 4Department of Dermatology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 5Department of Dermatology, Gachon Gil Medical Center, School of Medicine, Gachon University, Incheon, Korea, Republic of (South)

Meeting: 2018 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

Keywords: Antimalarial drugs, cytokines, interferons, interleukins (IL) and macrophages

  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print
Session Information

Date: Sunday, October 21, 2018

Session Title: Systemic Lupus Erythematosus – Etiology and Pathogenesis Poster I

Session Type: ACR Poster Session A

Session Time: 9:00AM-11:00AM

Background/Purpose: Two major therapies for cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) are the antimalarials, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and quinacrine (QC). HCQ is often the first-line therapy for CLE, but only half of patients show a response to it. While some of the patients that do not initially respond to HCQ benefit from the addition of QC, there is a subset of patients that are refractory to both antimalarials. Refractoriness poses a huge challenge because these patients will often continue to have active disease when they are initially started on antimalarials. To better characterize these refractory patients, we investigated the immunologic characteristics of patients that respond to antimalarials versus those that do not.

 

Methods: CLE patients were classified as HCQ-responders, HCQ/QC-responders, or HCQ/QC-nonresponders. Immunohistochemistry was used to characterize the inflammatory cell composition and cytokine expression in lesional skin biopsies from patients. Total RNA was extracted from these biopsies to analyze specific gene signatures. The patient’s CLASI score – a measure of disease activity – at the time of the biopsy was also determined.

 

Results: Immunohistochemistry showed that myeloid dendritic cells (mDCs) were significantly higher in HCQ/QC-responders compared to HCQ-responders and HCQ/QC-nonresponders, while plasmacytoid dendritic cells, neutrophils, macrophages, and autoreactive T cells did not differ significantly among the three groups. The HCQ/QC-nonresponder group was distinct from the other groups in that their CLASI scores did correlate positively with the number of macrophages (p<0.05, Figure 1). Staining also showed that IL-22 expression was significantly higher in HCQ/QC-nonresponders versus the HCQ- or HCQ/QC-responders while IL-17 expression was not significantly different between the responders and nonresponders. Analyzing the mRNA expression demonstrated a high type I IFN signature (LY6E, OAS1, ISG15, MX1) in HCQ-responders but a low type I IFN signature and higher TNF-alpha expression in both HCQ/QC-nonresponders and HCQ/QC-responders.

 

Conclusion: An increased number of mDCs may contribute to HCQ-refractoriness and predict a better response to treatment with both HCQ and QC but do not contribute to HCQ/QC-refractoriness. The significant correlation between macrophages and CLASI scores in the HCQ/QC-nonresponders, a finding not seen in either HCQ or HCQ/QC-responders, may also indicate that macrophages are more involved in antimalarial-refractory skin disease. The difference between the responders and nonresponders is further confirmed by the cytokine staining and mRNA expression. Our data is an initial step in determining the activation pathways that account for the lack of response to antimalarials.

 

 

Figure 1: CLASI Score versus Macrophages in HCQ-Responders, HCQ/QC-Responders, and HCQ/QC-Nonresponders


Disclosure: M. Zeidi, None; K. Desai, None; H. J. Kim, None; V. P. Werth, None.

To cite this abstract in AMA style:

Zeidi M, Desai K, Kim HJ, Werth VP. Immunologic Properties of Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus (CLE) Patients Refractory to Antimalarials Compared to Patients That Respond to Antimalarials [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2018; 70 (suppl 10). https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/immunologic-properties-of-cutaneous-lupus-erythematosus-cle-patients-refractory-to-antimalarials-compared-to-patients-that-respond-to-antimalarials/. Accessed August 12, 2022.
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Print

« Back to 2018 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/immunologic-properties-of-cutaneous-lupus-erythematosus-cle-patients-refractory-to-antimalarials-compared-to-patients-that-respond-to-antimalarials/

Advanced Search

Your Favorites

You can save and print a list of your favorite abstracts during your browser session by clicking the “Favorite” button at the bottom of any abstract. View your favorites »

ACR Pediatric Rheumatology Symposium 2020

© COPYRIGHT 2022 AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RHEUMATOLOGY

Wiley

  • Home
  • Meetings Archive
  • Advanced Search
  • Meeting Resource Center
  • Online Journal
  • Privacy Policy
  • Permissions Policies